Responding to Personality Tests in a Selection Context: The Role of the Ability to Identify Criteria and the Ideal-Employee Factor

Human Performance

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 273-302

  Klehe, Ute Christine ^a   Kleinmann, Martin ^b   Hartstein, Thomas ^c   Melchers, Klaus G ^b,d   König, Cornelius J ^e   Heslin, Peter A ^f   Lievens, Filip ^g  

^a JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c DekaBank   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

^e SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^g GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866699634     PISSN: 08959285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2012.703733     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Allport, G. W. 1937. Personality: A psychological interpretation, New York: Holt.
2. Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D. and Beauducel, A. 1999. Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 (IST 2000), Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
3. Arbuckle, J. L. 2003. AMOS, 5th, Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation.
4. Backström, M. 2007. Higher-order factors in a five-factor personality inventory and its relation to social desirability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23: 63-70.
5. Backström, M., Bjorklund, F. and Larsson, M. R. 2009. Five-factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43: 335-344.
6. Barrick, M. R. and Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26.
7. Barrick, M. R. and Mount, M. K. 1996. Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 261-272.
8. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. and Judge, T. A. 2001. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9: 9-30.
9. Baumeister, R. 1982. A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91 April: 3-26.
10. Biderman, M. D. and Nguyen, N. T. Structural equation models of faking ability in repeated measures designs. Paper presented at the 19th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago, IL.
11. Biderman, M. D. and Nguyen, N. T. Measuring faking propensity. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New Orleans, LA.
12. Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. and Cunningham, C. J. L. A method factor measure of self-concept. Paper presented at the 26. Chicago, IL. th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
13. Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. T., Mullins, B. and Luna, J. A method factor predictor of performance ratings. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Francisco, CA.
14. Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T. and Smith, M. A. 2006. A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14: 317-335.
15. Blickle, G., Momm, T., Schneider, P. B., Gansen, D. and Kramer, J. 2009. Does acquisitive self-presentation in personality self-ratings enhance validity? Evidence from two experimental field studies. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17: 142-153.
16. Borkenau, P. and Ostendorf, F. 1993. NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae, Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. [NEO-Five-Factor inventory (NEO-FFI) based on Costa and McCrae]
17. Burns, G. N. and Christiansen, N. D. Combating the effects of faking: Method factors and discriminate validity. Paper presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York, NY. April.
18. Byrne, B. M. 1994. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/WINDOWS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Byrne, B. M. 1998. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: basic concepts, applications, and programming, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Cellar, D. F., Miller, M. L., Doverspike, D. D. and Klawsky, J. D. 1996. Comparison of factor structures and criterion-related validity coefficients for two measures of personality based on the five factor model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 694-704.
21. Cheung, G. W. and Rensvold, R. B. 2002. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 233-255.
22. Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N. and Montgomery, G. E. 2005. Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18: 267-307.
23. Clark, J. M. I. and Biderman, M. D. A structural equation model measuring faking propensity and faking ability. Paper presented at the 21st annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Dallas, TX.
24. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Collins, J. M. and Gleaves, D. H. 1998. Race, job applicants, and the five-factor model of personality: Implications for black psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, and the five-factor theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 531-544.
26. Collins, J. M., Schmidt, F. L., Sanchez-Ku, M., Thomas, L., McDaniel, M. A. and Le, H. 2003. Can basic individual differences shed light on the construct meaning of assessment center evaluations?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11: 17-29.
27. Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A. and Goodman, D. F. 1995. A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 565-579.
28. Digman, J. M. 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 417-440.
29. Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R. and Hough, L. M. 1999. Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 155-166.
30. Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L. and Douglas, C. 2002. Social effectiveness in organizations: Construct validity and research direction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9: 49-63.
31. Fiske, S. T. and Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition, 2nd, New York: McGraw-Hill.
32. ForsterLee, R. 2007. Personality, interest, and motivational determinants of maximal and typical performances on a verbal knowledge task. Human Performance, 20: 287-292.
33. Gangestad, S. W. and Snyder, M. 2000. Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126: 530-555.
34. Goffin, R. D. and Christiansen, N. D. 2003. Correcting personality tests for faking: A review of popular personality tests and an initial survey of researchers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11: 340-344.
35. Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216-1229.
36. Griffith, R. L. and Peterson, M. H. 2006. A closer examination of applicant faking behavior, Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
37. Guion, R. M. 1965. Personnel testing, New York: McGraw-Hill.
38. Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F. and Foust, M. S. 1999. Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2: 233-256.
39. Hogan, J., Barrett, P. and Hogan, R. 2007. Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1270-1285.
40. Hogan, R. 1991. "Personality and personality measurement". In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Edited by: Dunnette, M. D. and Hough, L. M. 873-919. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
41. Hogan, R., Hogan, J. and Roberts, B. W. 1996. Personality measurement and employment decisions-Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51: 469-477.
42. Hogan, R. and Shelton, D. 1998. A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11: 129-144.
43. Holden, R. R., Kroner, D. G., Fekken, G. C. and Popham, S. M. 1992. A model of personality test item response dissimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63: 272-279.
44. Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L. and Stone, N. J. 2001. Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 897-913.
45. Hülsheger, U. R., Maier, G. W., Stumpp, T. and Muck, P. M. 2006. Vergleich kriteriumsbezogener Validitäten verschiedener Intelligenztests zur Vorhersage von Ausbildungserfolg in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer Metaanalyse [Comparing the criterion-related validities of different intelligence tests for predicting educational success in Germany: A meta-analysis]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 5: 145-162.
46. Klehe, U.-C. and Anderson, N. 2007. Working hard and working smart: Motivation and ability during typical and maximum performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 978-992.
47. Klehe, U.-C., Anderson, N. and Viswesvaran, C. 2007. More than peaks and valleys: Introduction to the special issue on typical and maximum performance. Human Performance, 20: 173-178.
48. Klehe, U.-C., König, C. J., Kleinmann, M., Richter, G. M. and Melchers, K. G. 2008. Transparency in structured interviews-consequences for construct and criterion-related validity. Human Performance, 21: 107-137.
49. Kleinmann, M. 1993. Are rating dimensions in assessment centers transparent for participants? Consequences for criterion and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 988-993.
50. Kleinmann, M. 1997a. Assessment-Center: Stand der Forschung, Konsequenzen für die Praxis, Göttingen, Germany: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie. [Assessment centers: State of research, consequences for practice]
51. Kleinmann, M. 1997b. Transparenz der Anforderungsdimensionen: Ein Moderator der Konstrukt- und Kriteriumsvalidität des Assessment-Centers [Transparency of the requirement dimensions: A moderator of assessment centers' construct and criterion validity]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 41: 171-181.
52. Kleinmann, M., Kuptsch, C. and Köller, O. 1996. Transparency: A necessary requirement for the construct validity of assessment centres. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45: 67-84.
53. Komar, S., Brown, D. J., Komar, J. and Robie, C. 2008. Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 140-154.
54. König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., Kleinmann, M., Richter, G. M. and Klehe, U.-C. 2006. The relationship between the ability to identify evaluation criteria and integrity test scores. Psychology Science, 48: 369-377.
55. König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., Kleinmann, M., Richter, G. M. and Klehe, U.-C. 2007. Candidates' ability to identify criteria in nontransparent selection procedures: Evidence from an assessment center and a structured interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15: 283-292.
56. Kroger, R. O. and Turnbull, W. 1975. Invalidity of validity scales: The case of the MMPI. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43: 48-55.
57. Kuncel, N. R. and Borneman, M. J. 2007. Toward a new method of detecting deliberately faked personality tests: The use of idiosyncratic item responses. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15: 220-231.
58. Kunda, Z. and Sanitioso, R. 1989. Motivated changes in the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 272-285.
59. Latham, G. P. and Wexley, K. N. 1994. Increasing productivity through performance appraisal, 2nd, Reading, MA: Wesley.
60. Li, A. and Bagger, J. 2006. Using the BIDR to distinguish the effects of impression management and self-deception on the criterion validity of personality measures: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14: 131-141.
61. Marcus, B. 2003. Persönlichkeitstests in der Personalauswahl: Sind "sozial erwünschte" Antworten wirklich nicht wünschenswert? [Personality testing in personnel selection: Is "socially desirable" responding really undesirable?]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211: 138-148.
62. Marcus, B. 2009. 'Faking' from the applicant's perspective: A theory of self presentation in personnel selection settings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17: 417-430.
63. Marcus, B., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G. and Rothstein, M. G. 2007. Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of typical and maximum managerial performance. Human Performance, 20: 275-285.
64. Markus, H. 1977. Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35: 63-78.
65. McFarland, L. A. and Ryan, A. M. 2000. Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 812-821.
66. McFarland, L. A. and Ryan, A. M. 2006. Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36: 979-1016.
67. Melchers, K. G., Klehe, U.-C., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J. and Lievens, F. 2009. "I know what you want to know": The impact of interviewees' ability to identify criteria on interview performance and construct-related validity. Human Performance, 22: 355-374.
68. Mersman, J. L. and Shultz, K. S. 1998. Individual differences in the ability to fake on personality measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 24: 217-227.
69. Mesmer-Magnus, J. and Viswesvaran, C. 2006. "Assessing response distortion in personality tests: A review of research designs and analytic strategies". In A closer examination of applicant faking behavior, Edited by: Griffith, R. L. and Peterson, M. H. 85-114. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
70. Mielke, R. and Kilian, R. 1990. Wenn Teilskalen sich nicht zu dem ergänzen, was die Gesamtskala erfassen soll: Untersuchungen zum Self-Monitoring-Konzept [When subscales don't add up to what the overal construct entails: Research on the concept of self-monitoring]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 21: 126-135.
71. Mischel, W. and Shoda, Y. 1995. A cognitive-affective system-theory of personality - reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102: 246-268.
72. Mischel, W. and Shoda, Y. 1998. Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49: 229-258.
73. Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K. R. and Schmitt, N. 2007a. Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60: 1029-1049.
74. Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K. R. and Schmitt, N. 2007b. Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60: 683-729.
75. Motowidlo, S. J. 1999. "Asking about past behavior versus hypothetical behavior". In The employment interview handbook, Edited by: der, R. W. E and Harris, M. M. 179-190. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76. Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D. and Carter, G. W. 1990. An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 640-647.
77. Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D. and Thornton, G. C. 2003. Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 348-355.
78. Nowack, W. and Kammer, D. 1987. Self-presentation: Social skills and inconsistency as independent facets of self-monitoring. European Journal of Personality, 1: 61-77.
79. Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C. and Judge, T. A. 2007. In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60: 995-1027.
80. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C. and Reiss, A. D. 1996. Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 660-679.
81. Pauls, C. A. and Crost, N. W. 2005. Effects of different instructional sets on the construct validity of the NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 39: 297-308.
82. Preckel, D. and Schüpbach, H. 2005. Zusammenhänge zwischen rezeptiver Selbstdarstellungskomopetenz und Leistung im Assessment Center [Correlations between receptive self-presentation competence and performance in an assessment center]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 4: 151-158.
83. Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L. and Levin, R. A. 1998. The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 634-644.
84. Sackett, P. R. 2007. Revisiting the origins of the typical-maximum performance distinction. Human Performance, 20: 179-185.
85. Sanitioso, R., Kunda, Z. and Fong, G. T. 1990. Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 229-241.
86. Schmit, M. J. and Ryan, A. M. 1993. The Big-5 in personnel-selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 966-974.
87. Schmitt, N. and Oswald, F. L. 2006. The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 613-621.
88. Schollaert, E. and Lievens, F. 2008. The effects of exercise instructions on the observability of assessment center behavior. International Journal of Psychology, 43: 577-577.
89. Smith, D. B., Hanges, P. J. and Dickson, M. W. 2001. Personnel selection and the five-factor model: Reexamining the effects of applicant's frame of reference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 304-315.
90. Smith, M. A., Moriatry, K. O., Lutrick, E. C. and Canger, J. M. Exploratory factor analysis of NEO PI-R for job applicants: Evidence against the Big Five. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA. April.
91. Snell, A. F., Sydell, E. J. and Lueke, S. B. 1999. Towards a theory of applicant faking: Integrating studies of deception. Human Resource Management Review, 9: 219-242.
92. Snyder, M. 1974. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 526-537.
93. Stricker, L. J. 1969. "Test-wiseness" on personality scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53: 1-17.
94. Tett, R. P. and Christiansen, N. D. 2007. Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60: 967-993.
95. Topping, G. D. and O'Gorman, J. G. 1997. Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 23: 117-124.
96. Van Iddekinge, C. H., Raymark, P. H., Eidson, C. E. and Putka, D. J. Applicant-incumbent differences on personality, integrity, and customer service measures. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA. April.
97. Vasilopoulos, N. L., Cucina, J. M., Dyomina, N. V., Morewitz, C. L. and Reilly, R. R. 2006. Forced-choice personality tests: A measure of personality and cognitive ability?. Human Performance, 19: 175-199.
98. Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D. S. 1999. Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59: 197-210.
99. Whyte, W. H. Jr. 1956. The organization man, New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone.
100. Wiggins, J. S. 1959. Interrelationships among MMPI measures of dissimulation under standard and social desirability instructions. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23: 419-427.
101. Woehr, D. J. and Huffcutt, A. I. 1994. Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67: 189-205.
102. Wrensen, L. B. and Biderman, M. D. Factors related to faking ability: A structural equation model application. Paper presented at the 20th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Los Angeles, CA. April.
103. Zickar, M. J. and Robie, C. 1999. Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 551-563.